Is man’s ego and the lack of personal humility the major cause of all Christian division?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hisalone said:
The counter Reformation is proof positive that reformation was needed. The fact that it was after not prior to the Reformation isw proof positive that Church leaders were unwilling to reform.
Click to expand...
OK. So, who has argued that reformation was not needed?
 
Jimmy, I totally agree. I want to ask another question. Is a divided Christianity responsible for the holocaust and is it responsible for the current holocausts? My belief is yes. I can expand more on this later.
 
Ronald_E said:
Jimmy, I totally agree. I want to ask another question. Is a divided Christianity responsible for the holocaust and is it responsible for the current holocausts? My belief is yes. I can expand more on this later.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of “holocausts”. I don’t believe you can pin all of them on a divided Christianity. Cambodia? Rwanda? Stalin’s Russia? There’s more at work in a lot of genocide than divided Christianity.

It will be interesting to see your expanded version of this topic.
 
Apart from the reasons already given I think we should consider power and money.

This is most prevailant in the USA. Evangelical, Pentecostal an LDS churches all want to ‘win’ converts not just to ‘save’ them but to get more members & thus get more cash to build their “ministries” and the bigger they get the more influence they have with politicians.
 
MelanieAnne said:
There are a lot of “holocausts”. I don’t believe you can pin all of them on a divided Christianity. Cambodia? Rwanda? Stalin’s Russia? There’s more at work in a lot of genocide than divided Christianity.

It will be interesting to see your expanded version of this topic.
Click to expand...
MelanieAnne, This will be brief. A divided house is turned against itself. I can’t recall the passage. Look at the wars just in recent history in which Christians were killing each other. Because of division we become more individually focused in our lives and consequently live a more material and isolated existence. We will tend to defend and protect what is ours or desire more of what we think will improve our lives materially.
In a divided Christianity we are more easily manipulated by evil to fight an enemy that is threatening to our human welfare.
Hitler identified the Jews as the cause of Germany’s economic crisis. Christians were manipulated into believing him by their desire for a better material life. If Christianity is united this could have never happened.
If there were 500 million united Christians at the time Hitler was beginning his rise to power there is one voice to stop him. Instead of pockets of martyrs who are sacrificed when they speak against evil we would have millions who are willing to sacrifice just as these martyrs.
Christianity is an action and not words. It is sacrifice of self for the benefit of those suffering. John Paul II identified it as solidarity in which we exist not for ourselves but for others. When there is division in our faith it creates conflict between Christians and actually aversion to one another. When there is an identified difference between human beings and it causes competition we become just like animals to protect what we have from those who are different and do not belong to our group. We exist as animals but think and speak ideas that support our position as though we know what we are doing. Evil then has an easy entry into power by influencing us to believe what is good is actually wrong.
Humility says I will give up my right to myself for those who are oppressed. What do we give up here for those suffering elsewhere?
We have a few saints who set the example while we give some money and some time to their cause. But do we ( I ) give enough? No. Am I willing to leave my comfort for those in need in another country? This is where theology is limited. It speaks and does not act. Taking a stand to feed the hungry and oppressed without violence is theology lived out in love.
Only action can unite Christianity.
There is too much to write here.
 
Ronald, I understand what you are writing. I’m simply not convinced that divisions in Christianity is at the root of all instances of genocide. Having said that, there are many things that are unproductive and unhelpful that proceed from divisions within Christianity.

I submit that the most strident anti-Catholic Christians are primarily a local, i.e. US, phenomenon. Worldwide, the most prominent Christian faith is Catholicism. It is mostly here in the US where the non-Catholic Christians represent a very large, and at times very divisive, segment of the Christian population.

Your theory does not describe how the divisions, wherever they are located geographically, are at the root of such holocausts as abortion, which is a form of genocide that exists worldwide. Nor does it address how divisions in Christianity are at the root of holocausts conducted where Christianity is a tiny minority, such as in Communist Russia, sub-Saharan Africa or Southeast Asia.

That is why, while I do not dispute that you have a point, that many problems proceed from divisions in Christianity, I submit that it is not at the root of every historical instance of genocide/holocaust.
 
WW I Christians killing Christians. WW II the same thing.
Killing makes it dangerous for babies to be born. Killing and violence is opposed to the nature of women who are created to bring life into the world. Christians killing Christians is opposed to life. Fear of violence and fear of no protection create the environment that leads to abortion. Men create violence. Christian men are to live like Christ stated to love our wives as He loves the Church. Unselfish and sacrificial. Women are created to give and receive that kind of love.
No mood, thought, action, belief is to be selfish. Sacrificial love prevents fear from forming in our relationships. If fear is at the root of our action death occurs.
I am expressing this quickly since my wife wants me to sacrifice my writing to be with her on a run.
The action of running with her shows her I am more motivated by love for her than my own ideas and puts a smile on her face.
God Bless
 
Ronald_E said:
WW I Christians killing Christians. WW II the same thing.
Killing makes it dangerous for babies to be born. Killing and violence is opposed to the nature of women who are created to bring life into the world. Christians killing Christians is opposed to life. Fear of violence and fear of no protection create the environment that leads to abortion. Men create violence. Christian men are to live like Christ stated to love our wives as He loves the Church. Unselfish and sacrificial. Women are created to give and receive that kind of love.
No mood, thought, action, belief is to be selfish. Sacrificial love prevents fear from forming in our relationships. If fear is at the root of our action death occurs.
I am expressing this quickly since my wife wants me to sacrifice my writing to be with her on a run.
The action of running with her shows her I am more motivated by love for her than my own ideas and puts a smile on her face.
God Bless
Click to expand...
Excellent points, Ronald. Look at history, specifically European history and the nations and parts of the world that it influenced after the split. Those who rise to power preaching division rather than humility and union always lead to strife and conflict. Division in Christ’s body leads to the temporary triumph of evil, since there is rarely a solid front to combat satan’s body, which remains unified.

History throughout the geographical area of the separated Orthodox church is also “interesting”. From Russia through the Holy Land, a state of near-constant strife is observed. Do separated Christians, either Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant feel the need to defend their brothers when one or the other in particular is suffering persecution? Did we not observe just this in Germany as Hitler attacked the church?

Divide and conquer. Since leaders, despots and tyrants come and go, from whom did this phrase have it origin? From the one who has sought the destruction of the Kingdom ever since he fell from grace.

Christ’s peace.
 
I have to leave quickly. Wouldn’t it be best that all denominations humble themselves and come to Catholicism in the unltimate act of humility which is inspired by the Holy Spirit. If we stay separated based on reasons of individual interpretation then we assist evil in the suffering of the innocents.
What have you got to lose? Individual arguments keep us separated from the unity of love that Jesus prayed for before His Crucifixion. The only thing you lose is the thrill of debate.
This UNITY would be the ultimate act of HUMILITY.
 
Dear Jimmy B

I think we should guard ourselves against oversimplified answers, both for the sake of truth and charity. The currant fragmented state of Christianity, have been in the making for the last 2000 years. Pride has undoubtedly played its role, but so have greed (for money and power), fear, misunderstandings, etc. As for whom to blame, often there is plenty of guilt to go around. While I do believe that abuses doesn’t warrant schisms, it can not be denied that members of the hierarchy of The Church have too often failed the institution and people in their care.

Now as for the “reformation”, I can in no way side with Luther (or for that matter Henry and Calvin). However I do not deny that Luther was in the beginning reacting to what was a real misuse of indulgences, and that he did so with the intend of helping The Church and its members. At that time, I do not think Luther had done anything that was inherently wrong. Sadly the split was then augmented by the reaction to his critique, both from his overzealous supporters and from the representatives from within The Church. Perhaps pride was a factor in this, but I wonder if greed and simple misunderstandings did not play an equally important part in the escalation.

Naturally Luther should have acted in accordance with the virtue of obedience and in accordance with the wish expressed by Our Savior in His prayer for Christian unity. Had Luther done so, by reacting like past saints and humbling himself before the Church, it is possible that much evil could have been avoided. No matter what, it is historical fact that he did not. After the definitive breakup, it is also known that he started introducing novel teaching that was not in harmony with Holy Scripture and Tradition. You might be right in your assessment that pride was a motivating factor in this (I do agree that Luther could sometimes act prideful), another guess would however be Luther’s infamous scrupulosity. Anyhow we should be careful in making such judgments, and let God be the judge of his motives.

As for Henry and the German princes supporting the reformation, that was all about politics and greed. Henry needed a male heir to the throne, the German princes saw an opportunity to gain land and autonomy, France wanted to challenge the German Emperor, etc. In this sense, the schism became a useful tool in the political struggle for power. The “reform” had taken on a life of its own, being hijacked by opportunistic politicians.

Also at the same time the Protestant theologians naturally started fighting each other. In this I actually tend to think that AgnosTheist have raised an excellent point about the difficult of interpreting the Bible, it is simply completely ill-suited to the Protestant doctrine of scripture alone. The Bible was never intended to be the sole authority, and I doubt unity will ever be accomplished as long as it is being misused in this way. Other important dynamic in the process have been cultural and economical factors, the role played by the prince of lies, and obviously the human factor (pride being a part of this).

God bless you
TL
 
TLDenmark said:
Dear Jimmy B

I think we should guard ourselves against oversimplified answers, both for the sake of truth and charity. The currant fragmented state of Christianity, have been in the making for the last 2000 years. Pride has undoubtedly played its role, but so have greed (for money and power), fear, misunderstandings, etc. As for whom to blame, often there is plenty of guilt to go around. While I do believe that abuses doesn’t warrant schisms, it can not be denied that members of the hierarchy of The Church have too often failed the institution and people in their care.

Now as for the “reformation”, I can in no way side with Luther (or for that matter Henry and Calvin). However I do not deny that Luther was in the beginning reacting to what was a real misuse of indulgences, and that he did so with the intend of helping The Church and its members. At that time, I do not think Luther had done anything that was inherently wrong. Sadly the split was then augmented by the reaction to his critique, both from his overzealous supporters and from the representatives from within The Church. Perhaps pride was a factor in this, but I wonder if greed and simple misunderstandings did not play an equally important part in the escalation.

Naturally Luther should have acted in accordance with the virtue of obedience and in accordance with the wish expressed by Our Savior in His prayer for Christian unity. Had Luther done so, by reacting like past saints and humbling himself before the Church, it is possible that much evil could have been avoided. No matter what, it is historical fact that he did not. After the definitive breakup, it is also known that he started introducing novel teaching that was not in harmony with Holy Scripture and Tradition. You might be right in your assessment that pride was a motivating factor in this (I do agree that Luther could sometimes act prideful), another guess would however be Luther’s infamous scrupulosity. Anyhow we should be careful in making such judgments, and let God be the judge of his motives.

As for Henry and the German princes supporting the reformation, that was all about politics and greed. Henry needed a male heir to the throne, the German princes saw an opportunity to gain land and autonomy, France wanted to challenge the German Emperor, etc. In this sense, the schism became a useful tool in the political struggle for power. The “reform” had taken on a life of its own, being hijacked by opportunistic politicians.

Also at the same time the Protestant theologians naturally started fighting each other. In this I actually tend to think that AgnosTheist have raised an excellent point about the difficult of interpreting the Bible, it is simply completely ill-suited to the Protestant doctrine of scripture alone. The Bible was never intended to be the sole authority, and I doubt unity will ever be accomplished as long as it is being misused in this way. Other important dynamic in the process have been cultural and economical factors, the role played by the prince of lies, and obviously the human factor (pride being a part of this).

God bless you
TL
Click to expand...
Hello TL,
Great post!
Welcome to CAF, I look forward to reading more of your posts.

God bless you too!
Peace 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top